Alternative for redshifts

[Jinsuk Kim]

- The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand.

- The wavelength of light should be different when it passes through the galaxy or not. However, this is contradictory to the observed result. So, the big bang theory is wrong.

The space except galaxy clusters expands during lights pass through the clusters which do not expand. The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H₀ x 10 ⁷ years = 7.25x10^-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (λ₂/λ₁) in the space except clusters. Hubble constant is estimated as H=21.7H₀ (z=11, R(t)=0.084) at 430 million years after big bang when GN-z11 or our galaxy were born, H=1.7H₀ (z=1, R(t)=0.503) at 6 billion years after big bang. The expansion ratios of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size are H x 10 ⁷ years = 0.01569 and 0.00123 at 430 million years and 6 billion years after big bang.

The wavelength of light becomes very different when it passes through the cluster or not. So the present CMB data showing the complete black body radiation in all directions is impossible and it implies big bang theory is wrong. If the number and size of clusters are underestimated, this may be unchanged because in the past when the universe was small too many lights passed through the galaxy clusters, but the observed CMB radiation is too isotropic(one part in 100,000). It needs to be emphasized that CMB data from the telescope exactly pointing at the far distant galaxy cluster should be quite different with the black body radiation according to 2.72548±0.00057 K temperature.

[Jinsuk Kim]

I propose the redshifts of stars explained by expansion of space are due to the reduction of frequency according to the distance of propagation. It means the energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason, for example, aether, dark matter, or vacuum. The relation between the frequency and distance can be obtained from the careful review of redshift results.

If we cannot accept the expansion of space, how can CMB be explained? I suppose we should accept that the temperature of universe is 2.7 K and matters in universe radiate thermally in the microwave range of frequencies like a black body.

[Strange]

49 minutes ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

I propose the redshifts of stars explained by expansion of space are due to the reduction of frequency according to the distance of propagation. It means the energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason, for example, aether, dark matter, or vacuum. The relation between the frequency and distance can be obtained from the careful review of redshift results.

Sigh.

Quote

• There is no known interaction that can degrade a photon's energy without also changing its momentum, which leads to a blurring of distant objects which is not observed. The Compton shift in particular does not work.
• The tired light model does not predict the observed time dilation of high redshift supernova light curves. This time dilation is a consequence of the standard interpretation of the redshift: a supernova that takes 20 days to decay will appear to take 40 days to decay when observed at redshift z=1.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/tiredlit.htm

Quote

Despite periodic re-examination of the concept, tired light has not been supported by observational tests^[4] and has lately been consigned to consideration only in the fringes of astrophysics.^[5]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

 

53 minutes ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

If we cannot accept the expansion of space, how can CMB be explained? I suppose we should accept that the temperature of universe is 2.7 K and matters in universe radiate thermally in the microwave range of frequencies like a black body.

Why is the temperature of the universe 2.7K? Why is it the same everywhere? What radiates this black body radiation? How much matter would be required to radiate this? 

 

How do you explain the primordial proportions of the elements?

As you are rejecting General Relativity, what are you replacing it with to explain gravity?

[Scott Mayers]

2 hours ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

I propose the redshifts of stars explained by expansion of space are due to the reduction of frequency according to the distance of propagation. It means the energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason, for example, aether, dark matter, or vacuum. The relation between the frequency and distance can be obtained from the careful review of redshift results.

 

If we cannot accept the expansion of space, how can CMB be explained? I suppose we should accept that the temperature of universe is 2.7 K and matters in universe radiate thermally in the microwave range of frequencies like a black body.

 

The energy would not be decreased if the propagation is in one direction only. Think of the energy as the quantity of information via some 'length' or number of wavelengths. Normally, if a light wave is created (as a photon), it consists of a unique 'length' or number of wavelengths according to the particular 'color' locally. Each 'color' has different numbers of wavelengths WHEN created and persist as it travels in space. But this means that given a particular 'color' created, differs from the same apparent color of a frequency created of a different original color. 

For example, let's say that you have a length of a fixed string. When any color (frequency) is initiated, each string has identical length. But since each frequency has different energy, this can be understood as the same length of string being used to create the wave but will alter the linear length presuming no difference in intensity represented by its altitude. Here I've inserted an illustration using Windows "Paint":

Edited October 15, 2018 by Scott Mayers
Misspelled "photon" as "proton".

[Strange]

7 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Normally, if a light wave is created (as a proton), it consists of a unique 'length' or number of wavelengths according to the particular 'color' locally.

Light is not created as a proton.

It doesn't have a "unique 'length' or number of wavelengths".

9 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Each 'color' has different numbers of wavelengths WHEN created and persist as it travels in space.

Each colour has a different wavelength, not a different number of wavelengths.

Quote

But this means that given a particular 'color' created, differs from the same apparent color of a frequency created of a different original color. 

This is incomprehensible. I assume English is not your first language.

 

Please don't post your ignorant nonsense in other people's threads.

[Scott Mayers]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

It doesn't have a "unique 'length' or number of wavelengths".

25 minutes ago, Scott Mayers said:

Each 'color' has different numbers of wavelengths WHEN created and persist as it travels in space.

Each colour has a different wavelength, not a different number of wavelengths.

You don't know what you are talking about. The energy of each photon relative to its 'color' when created is dependent upon both wavelength and frequency. Given I've responded to the OP to help Jinsuk follow, I'll let him/her respond to whether he follows. I've illustrated why the energy remains given linear propagation as has proven he already accepts. English (American) is my first language. 

[Jinsuk Kim]

Which of the followings is more reasonable?

- Space expands.

- The energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason.

CMB results cause the contradiction of big bang theory

- The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand.

- The wavelength of light should be different when it passes through the galaxy or not. However, this is contradictory to the observed result. So, the big bang theory is wrong.

The space except galaxy clusters expands during lights pass through the clusters which do not expand. The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H₀ x 10 ⁷ years = 7.25x10^-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (λ₂/λ₁) in the space except clusters. Hubble constant is estimated as H=21.7H₀ (z=11, R(t)=0.084) at 430 million years after big bang when GN-z11 or our galaxy were born, H=1.7H₀ (z=1, R(t)=0.503) at 6 billion years after big bang. The expansion ratios of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size are H x 10 ⁷ years = 0.01569 and 0.00123 at 430 million years and 6 billion years after big bang.

The wavelength of light becomes very different when it passes through the cluster or not. So the present CMB data showing the complete black body radiation in all directions is impossible and it implies big bang theory is wrong. If the number and size of clusters are underestimated, this may be unchanged because in the past when the universe was small too many lights passed through the galaxy clusters, but the observed CMB radiation is too isotropic(one part in 100,000). It needs to be emphasized that CMB data from the telescope exactly pointing at the far distant galaxy cluster should be quite different with the black body radiation according to 2.72548±0.00057 K temperature.

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Similar threads merged

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

Which of the followings is more reasonable?

- Space expands.

- The energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason.

The first, because it is based on theory and evidence. The second one is, as you say, based on an unknown reason.

1 hour ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

- The wavelength of light should be different when it passes through the galaxy or not. However, this is contradictory to the observed result. So, the big bang theory is wrong.

Light passing through a galaxy is not relevant. Actually, there is so much light and dust in galaxies, we can't observe the red-shift of light through galaxies, we have to look between them. So I'm not sure what you are referring to.

1 hour ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

The space except galaxy clusters expands during lights pass through the clusters which do not expand. The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H₀ x 10 ⁷ years = 7.25x10^-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (λ₂/λ₁) in the space except clusters. Hubble constant is estimated as H=21.7H₀ (z=11, R(t)=0.084) at 430 million years after big bang when GN-z11 or our galaxy were born, H=1.7H₀ (z=1, R(t)=0.503) at 6 billion years after big bang. The expansion ratios of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size are H x 10 ⁷ years = 0.01569 and 0.00123 at 430 million years and 6 billion years after big bang.

I can't really follow your argument here.

But as far as I can see, the effect of light passing through a galaxy cluster would be 7.25x10^-4 compared to a Z of say, 1. This is insignificant.

However, this seems to be based on the assumption that the light "accumulates" red-shift as it passes through space. This is incorrect. The red-shift is purely due to the difference in scale factor between the source and us. 

 

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

Which of the followings is more reasonable?

 

- Space expands.

 

- The energy of photon, E=hν is decreased in the propagation route by a certain unknown reason.

Photons/light follow geodesic paths in spacetime. When space expands it causes light following that path to be redshifted- cosmological redshift.

Quote

CMB results cause the contradiction of big bang theory

Wrong, totally. The CMBR is the left over relic heat from the time when the observable universe was in a hotter denser state. It is one of the pillars that support the BB.

-

Quote

The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand.

The wavelength of light is affected by gravitational redshift/blueshift, and this is taken into account when observing that light when reaching Earth.

Quote

- The wavelength of light should be different when it passes through the galaxy or not. However, this is contradictory to the observed result. So, the big bang theory is wrong.

Wrong. The observed redshift, both gravitational and cosmological are taken into account and like the CMBR supports the expansion of the universe and consequently the BB.

Quote

The space except galaxy clusters expands during lights pass through the clusters which do not expand. The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H₀ x 10 ⁷ years = 7.25x10^-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (λ₂/λ₁) in the space except clusters. Hubble constant is estimated as H=21.7H₀ (z=11, R(t)=0.084) at 430 million years after big bang when GN-z11 or our galaxy were born, H=1.7H₀ (z=1, R(t)=0.503) at 6 billion years after big bang. The expansion ratios of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size are H x 10 ⁷ years = 0.01569 and 0.00123 at 430 million years and 6 billion years after big bang.

The universe has undergone phases in the expansion rate due to mass/energy density and that expansion is now accelerating according to latest findings and which we call DE.

Quote

The wavelength of light becomes very different when it passes through the cluster or not. So the present CMB data showing the complete black body radiation in all directions is impossible and it implies big bang theory is wrong. If the number and size of clusters are underestimated, this may be unchanged because in the past when the universe was small too many lights passed through the galaxy clusters, but the observed CMB radiation is too isotropic(one part in 100,000). It needs to be emphasized that CMB data from the telescope exactly pointing at the far distant galaxy cluster should be quite different with the black body radiation according to 2.72548±0.00057 K temperature.

You appear to have the Bull by the wrong end. But hey, if you believe you have evidence that falsifies the BB, then write up an appropriate paper for professional peer review. And for the fools that would like to say that science/cosmology is too recalcitrant and set in there ways to change or modify incumbent theories, the facts are that even the BB was at one time outside looking in, and was in competition with two other hypotheticals...Steady State and Oscillating. The BB won out because the overwhelming evidence totally supports that concept, along of course with the fact that it compliments GR.

 

Edited October 15, 2018 by beecee

[Jinsuk Kim]

I revise λ₂/λ₁ as Δλ/λ in the previous comment.

 

The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H₀ x 10 ⁷ years = 7.25x10^-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (Δλ/λ) in the space except clusters.

 

 

- The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand.

- The wavelength of light should be different when it passes through the galaxy or not. However, this is contradictory to the observed result.

 

          λ₁→(Galaxy Area)→λ₁

Frequency(wavelength) doesn’t change because the space of galaxy doesn’t expand.

          λ₁→(Vacant Area)→λ₂

Frequency(wavelength) changes because the space of vacant area expands. λ₂ is very different from λ₁.

 

 

[beecee]

9 minutes ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

I revise λ₂/λ₁ as Δλ/λ in the previous comment.

 

 

 

The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H₀ x 10 ⁷ years = 7.25x10^-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (Δλ/λ) in the space except clusters.

 

 

 

 

- The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand.

 

- The wavelength of light should be different when it passes through the galaxy or not. However, this is contradictory to the observed result.

 

          λ₁→(Galaxy Area)→λ₁

 

Frequency(wavelength) doesn’t change because the space of galaxy doesn’t expand.

 

          λ₁→(Vacant Area)→λ₂

 

Frequency(wavelength) changes because the space of vacant area expands. λ₂ is very different from λ₁. 

That's accepted, observed phenomena.....It is only the universe/space over large scales that is expanding...smaller, denser regions like galaxies, galactic groups etc, are decoupled from any expansion by gravity. The light/photons will experience local Doppler shift due to stellar bodies orbiting, and gravitational red and blue shift, climbing out and falling into a gravity well. 

That does not alter or invalidate the BB one iota. The CMBR is found everywhere local and larger scales. 

[Jinsuk Kim]

Now, at last you understand me. Please look carefully my evaluations. And evaluate on your own and compare with the observed results.

 

The present expansion ratio of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size is H₀ x 10 ⁷ years = 7.25x10^-4. This ratio corresponds to the variation of wavelength of light (Δλ/λ) in the space except clusters. Hubble constant is estimated as H=21.7H₀ (z=11, R(t)=0.084) at 430 million years after big bang when GN-z11 or our galaxy were born, H=1.7H₀ (z=1, R(t)=0.503) at 6 billion years after big bang. The expansion ratios of space during lights pass through the cluster of 10 million light years size are H x 10 ⁷ years = 0.01569 and 0.00123 at 430 million years and 6 billion years after big bang.

The wavelength of light becomes very different when it passes through the cluster or not. So the present CMB data showing the complete black body radiation in all directions is impossible and it implies big bang theory is wrong. If the number and size of clusters are underestimated, this may be unchanged because in the past when the universe was small too many lights passed through the galaxy clusters, but the observed CMB radiation is too isotropic(one part in 100,000). It needs to be emphasized that CMB data from the telescope exactly pointing at the far distant galaxy cluster should be quite different with the black body radiation according to 2.72548±0.00057 K temperature.

[beecee]

3 hours ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

Now, at last you understand me. Please look carefully my evaluations. And evaluate on your own and compare with the observed results.

It is you who needs to understand that it is common knowledge that the expansion of the universe is only observed over large scales. Over smaller denser scales, gravity overcomes the expansion. The CMBR is everywhere, and none of your figures or attempts do anything at all to even question expansion and/or the BB. if you had anything at all, anything of startling new discoveries etc, you would not be here. You would be writing up a paper for professional peer review. 

[Jinsuk Kim]

Thank you Mr. Beecee. I suppose you understand my key idea. Later let's discuss more about other issues.

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

Thank you Mr. Beecee. I suppose you understand my key idea. Later let's discuss more about other issues.

That's OK, but I'm not a professional. The point I would like to make is that if I had a dollar for every person and ideas that individuals put on forums such as this, open to the public, claiming to invalidate incumbent models,  I would be very rich.

[swansont]

9 hours ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

 

- The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand.

 

- The wavelength of light should be different when it passes through the galaxy or not. However, this is contradictory to the observed result.

 

          λ₁→(Galaxy Area)→λ₁

 

Frequency(wavelength) doesn’t change because the space of galaxy doesn’t expand.

 

          λ₁→(Vacant Area)→λ₂

 

Frequency(wavelength) changes because the space of vacant area expands. λ₂ is very different from λ₁.

 

Where has this been observed? Galaxies tend to absorb incident light — we don't see through them very well. Where have we seen a photon that we know to have originated on one side of a galaxy observed on the other side, and shifted the wrong amount?

[Jinsuk Kim]

This is not the observed result. It is the logical ibference.

The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand.

 

[swansont]

4 minutes ago, Jinsuk Kim said:

This is not the observed result. It is the logical ibference.

The wavelength of light doesn't change at all in the galaxies because the space of the galaxies doesn't expand.

 

 

You said it was contradictory to the observed result. Are you admitting that there is no result that supports your claim?

[Jinsuk Kim]

Your question is good. But please read carefully the following.

The wavelength of light becomes very different when it passes through the cluster or not. So the present CMB data showing the complete black body radiation in all directions is impossible and it implies big bang theory is wrong. ~ but the observed CMB radiation is too isotropic(one part in 100,000).